Normally, when we talk about prices in the pages of
DDNews or in our online venues, it’s about things like research and development—i.e., the costs of discovering new entities,
poking and prodding them for potential efficacy, getting them through trials and all the in-betweens of that. Our news coverage only occasionally goes beyond
approvals, and even that is rare. Discovery through trials is our bread and butter, and once the drug is being advertised and sold, it’s outside our
wheelhouse.

That said, though, two names have come up in the news to talk about pricing of prescription
drugs—Hillary Clinton and Martin Shkreli—and both of their recent churning of the waters could have a potential impact on pre-commercialization
efforts. So, I’m going to step outside our wheelhouse this month.

Like I said, normally I don’t care
about how much a drug costs. (Unless, of course, I’m buying pharmaceuticals for me and my family, in which case I care enough sometimes to use very
colorful language that might put my very immortal soul in jeopardy.) As part of her campaign for the Democratic Party presidential nomination, though,
Clinton proposed government regulation of drug prices; so has Bernie Sanders, but his comments didn’t stir people up as much, because such stands are
pretty much expected from him. Here are a couple industry responses:

Researchers and scientists across the biopharmaceutical
industry have dedicated their lives to the search for new treatments and cures for patients. They do this against seemingly insurmountable odds, knowing that
despite years of work on potential medicines, nine out of 10 will fail during clinical trials and the process will start over. This persistence and
dedication to patients has resulted in tremendous advances against some of life’s biggest enemies, including cancer, hepatitis C, heart disease and
other terrible diseases. Secretary Clinton’s proposal would turn back the clock on medical innovation and halt progress against the diseases that
patients fear most. These sweeping and far-reaching proposals would restrict patients’ access to medicines, result in fewer new treatments for
patients, cost countless jobs across the country and erode our nation’s standing as the world leader in biomedical innovation. —Pharmaceutical
Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA)

The proposal released today by the Clinton campaign would do irreparable harm to the
nation’s health innovation system, significantly hindering the ability of emerging biotechnology companies to develop the new cures and therapies that
patients need to live longer, more productive lives. Intrusive government regulation of a system that relies on entrepreneurial vision and private capital is
a recipe for failure. —Biotechnology Industry Organization

Also from PhRMA is a poll that suggests, looking ahead to the 2016
election, that the vast majority of voters (86 percent) say encouraging the development of new medicines should be an important priority for the next
president and congress, with a majority of voters (53 percent compared to 37 percent) of the opinion that encouraging the development of new medicines should
be more of a priority than reducing spending on prescription medicines, despite the latter being the focus of some candidates’ policy proposals.

And then you have Shkreli, CEO of Turing Pharmaceuticals, who made headlines globally in recent weeks for defending his
company’s decision to raise the price of Daraprim—a medication used to treat toxoplasmosis in AIDS patients—more than 5,000 percent after
acquiring the rights to the drug. Mind you, this is a 62-year-old drug his company acquired for $55 million. Public outrage did force Shkreli to announce a
price reduction, though as of press time for this issue, that price hadn’t been announced—it isn’t likely to go back down to $13.50 per
tablet, but who knows how close it will be to the $750 he was shooting for.

Bottom line: I don’t like the
idea of painting pharmas and biotechs as merely greedy companies, given the kind of costs they incur and rates of failure they must endure that many other
industries do not. But at the same time as we try to hold back the politicians from questionable levels of control, can we please shame people like Shkreli
out of the business so they don’t perpetuate pharma’s undeserved predatory characterizations?